{"id":7879,"date":"2026-03-06T22:09:35","date_gmt":"2026-03-06T21:09:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexysadvocaten.nl\/?p=7879"},"modified":"2026-03-20T17:54:42","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T16:54:42","slug":"buyer-accidentally-bids-23-mio-on-hotel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexysadvocaten.nl\/en\/buyer-accidentally-bids-23-mio-on-hotel\/","title":{"rendered":"Buyer accidentally offers \u20ac23 mio on hotel: should he decline?"},"content":{"rendered":"

An auction buyer \u2018accidentally\u2019 makes a bid for a vacant hotel of as much as \u20ac23 million. This happened to a real estate trader from Lelystad. According to the trader, he had not wanted to offer such a high price at all, but \u2018only\u2019 \u20ac 2.3 million. The man would have typed one \u2018zero too many\u2019. Therefore, according to him, no purchase agreement would have come about. He had also never wanted to buy the hotel for the price he had offered. Seller and buyer were recently in court. The stakes of the proceedings were lifting of attachments<\/a> which seller had laid. However, the judge did not believe there was a typographical error. But then what was going on? We read about it in the judgment of Feb. 17, 2026, published only this week (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:695<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Execution auction of \u201cChinese ghost hotel\u201d<\/h2>\n

From the media<\/a> it appears that the case involves a badly run hotel in Hoofddorp, near Schiphol Airport known locally as Chinese Ghost Hotel. The defendant<\/a> in this case is a mortgagee who gave to the hotel owner a loan<\/a> had provided. After the municipality of Haarlemmermeer foreclosure<\/a> had laid on the hotel, the mortgagee took over the foreclosure and initiated auction proceedings.<\/p>\n

Property dealer types \u2018zero too many\u2019 and offers \u20ac23m instead of \u20ac2.3m<\/h2>\n

The real estate trader made a bid of \u20ac23,010,000 at the auction. This bid was accepted. However, the real estate trader did not fulfill his obligation to pay the bid price. He says he never intended to bid this price. The mortgage holder is of the opinion that simply a purchase agreement is established<\/a>, and then dissolves it because the auction buyer fails to fulfill it. Instead, the mortgagee claims the agreed penalty of 15% of the bid made. That penalty is due under the general auction conditions for Internet auctions (AVVI 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Fine due to typographical error of \u20ac3,451,000.<\/h2>\n

That penalty amounts to \u20ac3,451,000. The mortgagee then imposes batter<\/a> on a number of properties from the real estate dealer. The latter then claimed in summary proceedings<\/a> lifting of those attachments. However, the judge does not agree. He does not believe the auctioneer's story. He finds it implausible that a typing error was made.<\/p>\n

Lawyer explains what happens after an auction purchase<\/h2>\n